ON the sixth day she was homeless, Tonya Lewis overslept. She woke in the dark, in Room 6E at the 93rd Avenue Family Residence, a privately run shelter in Jamaica, Queens. It was 4:45 a.m. She was already running late.

Rousting her children  Unique, 15, and Jacaery, 2  from their beds, Ms. Lewis got them dressed and started shoving DVDs and diapers into two bulging tote bags. When the boys were ready  sleepy, sullen, hoodied, backpacked, in hats and winter jackets  she pushed them out the door (Come on, we gotta go!) to begin their daily routine.

It went like this:

They took the Q54 bus five stops to the J train. They took the J train 14 stops to Broadway Junction station. Unique hopped off and transferred to the C train, then the S train, then walked a distance to his classes at the High School for Global Citizenship in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn. Ms. Lewis, with Jacaery (pronounced Juh-CARE-ee) still in tow, transferred from the J to the L train. She took the L to the B6 bus in Brooklyn, which she rode to East New York, where she worked for an hour, and then reversed course  the B6 to the L to the J  to get Jacaery to his day care center in Bedford-Stuyvesant by 9.

All told, the odyssey required four hours, six trips on the subway and three trips on the bus, and suggests the changing nature of homelessness in New York. Unlike in the 1980s, when the crisis was defined by AIDS patients or men who slept on church steps, these days it has become more likely that a seemingly ordinary family, rushing about on public transportation with Elmo bags and video games, could be without a home.

Of New Yorks more than 40,000 homeless people in shelters  enough to fill the stands at Citi Field  about three-quarters now belong to families like the Lewises and are cloaked in a deceptive, superficial normalcy. They do not sleep outside or on cots on armory floors. By and large, their shoes are good; some have smartphones. Many get up each morning and leave the shelter to go to work or to school. Their hardships  poverty, unemployment, a marathon commute  exist out of sight.

<u>Underlying this transition is a cascade of events, both economic and political.</u> For the past three years, city officials say, <u>30 percent of New Yorkers seeking shelter have done so because of evictions, many connected to the financial crisis. </u>(Domestic violence and overcrowding were other chief reasons.) At the same time, a disagreement over money between city and state officials last spring led to the cessation of a rent-subsidy program designed to shift the homeless from shelters into apartments. For the first time in 30 years, there is no city policy in place to help move the homeless into permanent homes.

MS. LEWIS, a health care aide, was evicted last month from her home in Far Rockaway, Queens. She was working <u>full time</u> for Able Health Care Services of New York, making about $500 a week tending to an autistic man. In August, because of cuts in Medicaid, her hours were reduced by half. Six weeks ago, she separated from her husband, Gregory Pitters, a maintenance man, who, before he lost his own job, earned $600 a week. On top of this, the $1,000 rent subsidy Ms. Lewis was receiving from the city, through the now-defunct program Advantage, ran out. Her apartment, a small two-bedroom, rented for $1,200 a month. She now makes $210 a week. She owes her landlord $4,280. The problem was mathematical, she said: I cant afford the rent. </div></div>

Only to a person of low intelligence or one who's bias clouds their objective thinking.

This woman may have a low level of education but she has no addiction problem, she is not irresponsible [ maybe made some bad choices ]and she is certainly not lazy. She is more a victim of circumstances beyond her control. O'Reilly,s message is ,

"if your poor, its your own fault."

...which although might be true for a small minority but does not reflect the reality that many have been cast into poverty because they lost their jobs and can't get another one.

Only to a person of low intelligence or one who's bias clouds their objective thinking.

Q </div></div>

Dude ... it's your link, don't go hating on me because I actually read the story. If you had then you would realize that according to your link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She was working <u>full time</u> for Able Health Care Services of New York, making about $500 a week tending to an autistic man. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>In August, because of cuts in Medicaid, her hours were reduced by half.</span>

Q </div></div>

and Obamacare has forced MEDICAID and MEDICARE cuts across the nation.

In fact, O-cultists such as yourself cheered the new Obamacare law because it would "SAVE" so much money by causing these cuts.

IN FACT (http://www.fiercehealthfinance.com/story/cuomo-ponders-deep-medicaid-cuts-new-york/2011-01-04) it was demokrook New York gubner Andrew Cuomo who brought these MEDICAID cuts into being. Why weren't you complaining about it then?

What's that? He wears the golden (D) so your handlers will not allow you to be critical of him? But ... I already knew that.

Now, viewing a monster of your own creation by support, you cringe and blame others?

How unsurprisingly typical of you.

Qtec

02-06-2012, 06:55 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2011, Medicaid, along with Medicare, became a central focus of the partisan debate over the nation's long-term budget. Although Medicaid provides health insurance to one in five Americans at some point in a year, it is more vulnerable to cuts than Medicare and Social Security, which have broader political support.

The Republican-controlled House passed a budget written by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House budget chairman, that would turn Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor through a combination of federal and state money, into a block grant program for states. The federal government would give lump sums to states, which in turn would be given more flexibility and independence over use of the money, though the plan does not spell out what the federal requirements would be.

The budget plan failed in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In July, President Obama offered to put Medicaid, along with Social Security and Medicare, on the table in negotiations over a long-term deficit-reduction plan. The idea alarmed some Democrats, but Republicans backed away from the idea of a sweeping deal because of Mr. Obama's insistence that spending cuts be coupled with revenue increases.</span>

In September, Mr. Obama's proposal to the special Congressional deficit-reduction committee called for shaving $72 billion from Medicaid and other health programs over the next 10 years, far less than the $248 billion reduction sought for Medicare. </div></div>

So yes, he did reduce funding but only at GOP insistence!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, O-cultists such as yourself cheered the new Obamacare law because it would "SAVE" so much money by causing these cuts. </div></div>

I think you would find that there was great opposition to the compromises Obama was making.

Again you avoid the point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this woman is homeless because of Obamacare? </div></div>

No. It says in the link that funding for people in this kind of situation has disappeared, this is the work of the GOP "we must cut costs" but at the same time borrow Billions from China because we need to give the [<span style="color: #990000"> NON</span> ]'job creators' more money crap.

Mitt says he wants to 'fix the holes in the safety net' but at the same time he wants to defund all safety nets.

The simple fact is that poverty is a lot more complicated than you or Bill the Dildo could ever imagine.

Q

eg8r

02-06-2012, 08:56 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So yes, he did reduce funding</div></div>No need to say more. You can blame this on the Reps all you want but basically all you are saying is that Obama cared more about the passage of a horrible bill, which forced people out of work, than he cared about the people he would negatively impact.